Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Riverside Cessna 310 crash


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  So Why  09:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 Riverside Cessna 310 crash

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tragic but not notable general aviation crash. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Regretfully, a Delete, as per my comments left in my New Page Review on the user's talk page. (I hope other editors will note that Kurosubi appears to be a brand new editor. If so, he/she may well be disappointed if the concensus here for this particular article is for 'deletion', but they are surely to be praised for producing such a well-constructed article and I, for one, hope they will continue to make other contributions in the future, and not be put off by our discussions here.) Nick Moyes (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete – accidents to private flights involving non-notable people are considered to be below the threshold of inclusion, since such occurrences, tragic as they might be, are run-of-the-mill life stories that are good for a newspaper, but not necessarily for Wikipedia. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete' though I endorse Nick Moyes comments on the author, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. sIMPLY PUT wIKIPEDIA IS NOT A NEWSPAPER OR REPOSITORY OF DAILY LIFE SNIPPETS.--Petebutt (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing notable. Wykx  (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete light aircraft accidents are rarely notable and I cant see anything here that passes the threshold for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.